| Course | PHLT 8040 Advanced Public Health Policy and Advocacy |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 8 |
| Paper type | Advocacy letter |
| Length | About 440 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Letter, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PHLT 8040 Week 8
Month Day, Year
Executive Director
State Water Finance Authority
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]
Re: Septic repair lending in the final Clean Water State Revolving Fund intended use plan
Dear Executive Director:
I am writing to ask that you sign the final Clean Water State Revolving Fund intended use plan with two changes: a septic repair lending program for homeowners, offered through participating local lenders, and a ranking criterion that awards priority points to septic repairs within 1,000 feet of a lake, or within the recharge area of private wells, and to households below 80% of area median income.
Both changes fall within authority your office already holds. Federal law lets the revolving fund pay to fix or replace decentralized wastewater systems (33 U.S.C. § 1383), and the intended use plan is the instrument through which your office decides which eligible uses receive money and how projects are ranked. No legislation is needed for the fund to begin lending for septic repair, whatever happens to Senate File 1187 this session. The changes I propose affect how the fund ranks and offers financing, not who is eligible.
The cost is real and should be named. Money lent for septic repair is money not lent to a municipal treatment plant in the same year, and loans to individual households require a servicing arrangement your office does not now have. Lending through community banks, which originate and service the loans while the fund buys down the interest rate, has been used for this purpose in other states and keeps the administrative burden manageable. A modest first-year allocation would let the program prove its repayment record before it grows.
The public health case is direct. A failed system beside a shallow well or a lake can put bacteria, viruses and nitrate into the water a family drinks or a child swims in, and in one Wisconsin study, children living where septic systems crowded together had more diarrheal illness (Borchardt et al., 2003). Federal guidance has long estimated that a substantial share of systems malfunction each year (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2002), yet the state's largest water quality fund has never reached them. Priority points for systems near lakes and wells direct the first loans to the failures most likely to harm health, and points for lower-income households reach the owners least able to repair a system on their own.
I would be glad to meet with your staff during the review period or to provide the county complaint and well test data that lake associations in my area have assembled. Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
[Signature]
Dana Whitfield, MPH
[Street Address], Pine Lake Township
References
Borchardt, M. A., Chyou, P.-H., DeVries, E. O., & Belongia, E. A. (2003). Septic system density and infectious diarrhea in a defined population of children. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(5), 742-748. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.5914
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1383 (2024).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Onsite wastewater treatment systems manual (EPA/625/R-00/008). Office of Water.
PHLT 8040 Week 8 instructions, in plain terms
The eighth assignment usually asks for a one-page advocacy letter to a named official asking for a specific action. Faculty expect the request in the opening sentence, a paragraph showing the request falls within the official's existing authority, an honest statement of what the change would cost, and a brief evidence paragraph explaining why it matters. The letter should be short, professional and signed with the writer's credentials and address. Requests that require new legislation, or that ask an official for something outside their power, miss the point of the exercise. An offer of further information or a meeting is a common close. Formal comment during a review period is a legitimate alternative, but the letter's purpose is to ask a decision-maker to act and to explain why the change is within reach.
How this PHLT 8040 Week 8 example is built
The letter block addresses the executive director with a subject line naming the intended use plan. The first paragraph states two requested changes: a septic repair lending program through local lenders and priority points for repairs near lakes and wells and for lower-income households. The second shows the authority exists under federal law and the plan's ranking process, and notes that no legislation is needed regardless of the pending bill. The third names the cost, money diverted from municipal projects and the need for loan servicing, and proposes community bank origination with a rate buydown and a modest first-year allocation. The fourth gives the health rationale with one study and the federal malfunction estimate. The close offers data from lake associations and is signed with credentials and a township address.
PHLT 8040 Week 8 rubric: what earns full marks
The letter is graded on whether its request is clear, grantable and honestly costed. A letter that opens with background, asks for something requiring a statute or hides the cost earns less. Graders look for the request in the first sentence, a paragraph grounding it in existing authority, and a cost paragraph that names what is given up. The evidence paragraph should be brief and accurate. Professional form, a single page, credentials and an address, counts too, and graders reward a proposal that anticipates the official's practical concerns, such as loan servicing, and to an offer of help rather than a demand. Tone matters: the letter should read as an invitation to act within the director's power, not as a complaint.
PHLT 8040 Week 8 help: mistakes that cost marks
Advocacy letters often bury the request after paragraphs of context. Put it in your first sentence. Then show the official already has the power to grant it, and say plainly what it would cost. Add one paragraph of evidence and an offer of help. Keep the letter to one page, sign it with your credentials and address, and make sure the request does not require a law the official cannot pass. One page to a different official, on a different request, follows the identical order.
Get a PHLT 8040 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Tell the desk which official holds the decision and what document they sign, then add the Week 8 prompt and rubric. One page, one request: the PHLT 8040 advocacy letter arrives in 24 to 48 hours, and the first request is free. No actual department director is addressed; the one on this page was invented.
More PHLT 8040 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PHLT 8040 Week 1: Septic Jurisdiction Post
- PHLT 8040 Week 2: Septic Systems Issue Brief
- PHLT 8040 Week 3: Septic Policy Stakeholder Map
- PHLT 8040 Week 4: Septic Bill Policy Brief
- PHLT 8040 Week 5: Tools of Government Peer Replies
- PHLT 8040 Week 6: Septic Bill Clause Analysis
- PHLT 8040 Week 7: Septic Bill Testimony
- PHLT 8040 Week 9: Septic Coalition Strategy Memo
- PHLT 8040 Week 10: Septic Bill Op-Ed
- PHLT 8040 Week 11: Septic Policy Proposal
- PHLT 8042 Week 8: School BMI Law Rebuttal Essay
- PHLT 8034 Week 8: Chromium Risk Characterization
- PHLT 8032 Week 8: Tau-b Association Run
- PHLT 8006 Week 8: Admired Model Critique
PHLT 8040 Week 8 questions, answered
Why write to the director rather than comment in the review period?
Both are legitimate, and they do different work. A formal comment enters the record with everyone else's, while a letter to the director asks a decision maker to act and explains why the change is within reach. The example is a letter because the prompt asks for advocacy to a named official. Your section may accept a comment instead, in which case the same single request can anchor it.
Where can I find a free PHLT 8040 Week 8 sample paper?
The full Week 8 advocacy letter is reproduced on this page, asking a finance authority director to add septic repair lending and priority points to the revolving fund's intended use plan.
What is an intended use plan?
It is the annual document in which a state describes how it will use its revolving fund: which uses and projects receive money, how projects are ranked and on what terms loans are offered.
Why ask for priority points instead of a new program?
Ranking criteria are within the director's existing discretion, so priority points can be added in the next plan without new authority, which makes the request easier to grant.
Does a letter like this need to mention the pending bill?
Briefly. Noting that the agency can act regardless of the bill's fate shows the request stands on its own and does not depend on the legislature.